Speech Error Correction: The Story of the Alternates List

Abstract

Error correction with speech recognition products is extraordinarily difficult for users. Users spend much more time correcting errors than they spend dictating new text. In order to find ways to improve users' error correction experience, we examined the use of four different error correction mechanisms. The two error correction methods that users were most successful with were redictation and selection of a list of alternatives (“the alternates list”). Users rated the latter as the more satisfying method. User satisfaction with the alternates list was surprising as it was not a terribly accurate error correction method. On the Tablet PC we made several interface enhancements to facilitate the use of the alternates which included the use of (1) strong modes, (2) a push-to-talk model for microphone control, (3) a lighter weight alternates list which was easier to open and dismiss. Users performed transcription tasks with this new interface and we examined which error correction methods people preferred. Users of the new interface no longer compounded error upon error and were far more likely to use the alternates list than was the case for users of pre-existing interfaces. Users were very likely to switch modes from the alternates list to redictation when the alternates list did not contain the target word.